Category: Ethnic considerations

Ryan Louis Underwood Unearths A Kinist Quote From Prominent Anglican

“Around the Englishman are others, born of the same race, speaking the same language, living under the same laws, fed from the same soil; In fact, satisfying almost all of the conditions under which a family exists together in its home. Sprung from different parents, localized in different neighborhoods, there is yet one common parent of all these, and one unvarying home. Our country is our general Mother, and her bounds our natural home.

Within those limits, we are like brothers and sisters of a family, not strangers, but native: not guests but members.

Whatever is there, is, in place and degree, for us; for the body of which we are parts, and for us, inasmuch as we are bound up with the body …

As regards the rest of the world, the nation is as one: as regards one another, national greatness, national advantages, national success and failure are common to all its citizens. In all these particular does the mind, true to its original training, recognize and embrace as a great home, the common country of the whole race of which the individual forms a part.

A man finds himself bound to his fellow-countrymen by a common language, which has grown up amidst events, and bears trace of changes, whose effects are still acting on the great brotherhood of the nation.
The history of their country is the history of all.”

Henry Alford – 1810-1871
Anglican Dean Of Canterbury Cathedral
The Nation An Extension of Family
Lectures on the 5th Commandment

Bits of Conversation With Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

“Take the language of invasion as an example. I think it is legitimate to speak in political terms about an invasion when referring to mass immigration being brought into a country. That kind of language functions the same way politicians speak about fighting or war. But that is very different from an actual military invasion.

If China or Russia or some other foreign power started paratrooping troops into my home city, with soldiers dropping from the sky, it would be legitimate for me to grab the guns I own and shoot those invaders. That is a real invasion. That is not the same thing as political rhetoric about immigration.

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

Has this man never heard of guerilla warfare? Has he never read about the Vietcong guerilla tactics during the Vietnam war? Harmless civilians by day … terrorists by night.

Clearly, Spurgeon doesn’t know what time it is culturally speaking. We are being invaded unto the end of being replaced. This is not political rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric. God nowhere calls us to disappear as a people. That is the effect of Spurgeon’s inability to differentiate categorically between criminals/invaders and neighbors.

Here I quote one Elizabeth Makis (an attorney) who just eats Spurgeon’s lunch with her response;

“This post is a great example of classic, White naivete, where you project your own ethics onto foreign hostile groups. Russians and Chinese, etc., KNOW they could never accomplish a full frontal ground assault. It’s called asymmetrical warfare, and they intentionally use “immigration” as a weapon precisely because of attitudes like yours (Spurgeon’s). If the American communists are intentionally using 3rd world immigration as a weapon, would it matter if the people being imported knew the full extent of the intentions of those importing them? If the causal factor in their being here is the intended destruction of American culture and civilization, then it’s an invasion. They ARE the weapon. The whole reason why it works is BECAUSE we would not be justified in violently unaliving random people. That also doesn’t mean they’re legitimate neighbors anymore than the people still in Somalia are our neighbors.”

I wonder, if Spurgeon read “The Camp of the Saints” if he would get it even then?

____

“The question then becomes how they treat the people they actually meet. That calls for a different kind of action. I am not blurring distinctions. The people critiquing me are the ones doing that.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

Illegals are criminals and invaders and so, to honor God, we are to treat them as criminals. You don’t give casseroles and babysitting services to a criminal.

As REO Speedwagon once sang,

That ain’t love
Well, at least it doesn’t sound like love to me

You would aid them if you happened upon them unconscious and beaten up on the side of the road. In that case you would take them to a ICE hospital where they could be stitched back together and then extradited back home. However, if you wouldn’t invite Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson to have tea and crumpets with your house as with your wife and children the principle is established that one treats criminals different than they would the Stewarts who have lived across the street for 20 years as your neighbor.

_____

“In particular, in his commentary on the Good Samaritan, Calvin says that Jesus teaches our neighbor does not end with those who are like us in nationality or religion. All people are neighbors, including even our enemies, which is why Jesus says we can love our enemies. So Calvin upholds the fact that distinctions are real, while also upholding a general love that we owe to all people. He affirms that civil magistrates can and should do what is best for their people, while also calling individuals to do good to their neighbors.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

1.) Love for enemies here does not exclude doing that which they would consider “hate.” For example when one gives the Law to the sinner he considers that act of love to be an act of hate. In the same way love of civilian invaders can be an act that they would consider “hate.” Would Rev. Spurgeon insist that it would be a lack of love to enemy if I turned in my illegal invader neighbor to ICE? Would Rev. Spurgeon say it was an act of hate to my illegal invader neighbor if I asked them over for a meal and invited ICE agents as well in order to arrest them? I would say that these are acts of love. It is an act of love to not let the Criminal get away with their criminality and/or criminal behavior.”

2.) Rev. Spurgeon here also continues with his habit of forgetting about the necessity we have to love our White Anglo Saxon Christian neighbor. Is it neighbor love to them to welcome the stranger and alien thus allowing the stranger and alien to eat up resources that will not longer be available to the citizens of this nation? Rev. Spurgeon seems to be forgetting that these people we are to love are criminals as seen in their theft and fraud – not to mention being here illegally. Love does not allow the criminal to continue to be a criminal… does not reward the criminal for being a criminal. The illegals are criminals. God’s law does not say… “Treat the criminal as if he is not a criminal. Treat him as if he were the Stewart family who has lived next door to you for 30 years.” Love to God requires us to do all we an to make sure the criminal is arrested by ICE.

We see therefore that Rev. Spurgeon really does not understand what love is when dealing with criminals and invaders.

3.) Rev. Spurgeon makes the mistake of turning the criminal/invader into the victim as found in the parable of the Good Samaritan where the fact of the matter is, is that the criminal/invader are those who beat up the victim that the Good Samaritan finds beaten and bruised.

I close with a quote from a friend of mine, Dr. Jaime Castillo, a Filipino;

It looks like the example of the Good Samaritan has been used to defend (wrongly) the naïveté dealing with members of dangerous tribes. Helping a person with true needs does not mean being recklessly indiscriminate about groups that are physically proximal to us.

Clearly the Samaritan was being wise knowing that the person was indeed fully helpless and alone, and hence was not a threat. I will assist such a person too, regardless of their tribal affiliation. It is situational compassion however, not unity of tribes as happy neighbors in one multicultural Babylon and its many gods.

There are also scammers and criminals looking like they also direly need help after all. We know this. Mercy without discernment about them leads to one’s own destruction. If we are not screening people groups by number, faith, and culture, and we are neglecting that we still have priorities that obviously include safety and preservation of our own communities, we end up increasingly weakened and spread too thinly. We will soon be incapable of expressing true love because we are unable to help anyone who do need our assistance, especially those who belong to our own families and tribes.

The Conversation On The Race Issue Is Buzzing

Seeing numerous conversations on the issue of race.

However, while there will be some conversions in thinking in the Kinist direction the issue as a whole is not going to find the majority of people convinced, as if everyone is going to come over to a Biblical position.

Just think about how long race has been an issue in the West. Why would we think that it will be determined in such a way as to no longer be contentious?

The PCA was birthed, in part, because of the race issue. I think new denominations need to be birthed now the same way the PCA was birthed once upon a time. People don’t know this as it has been conveniently buried but the PCA came out of the PCUS for the reasons that we find unearthed from one of the PCA founding Fathers;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS)

  • The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
  • The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
  • The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
  • The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

    John Edwards Richards
    One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

On this subject I have also I’ve seen plenty of people say “this issue is not a Gospel issue.” I would say first, if this is not a Gospel issue then why am I hearing of churches splitting because those departing don’t want to be associated with fellow members of the church they are leaving due to the fact that those being left behind are “racist?”

I beg to differ though on this not being a Gospel issue. Now, I’m sure there are all kinds of Alienists who have not thought this through and so do not realize the implications of being an Alienist. However, there are others who should understand that this is indeed a Gospel issue.

Think about it. Alienism – that which is being pursued by those who hate Kinism – is based on the premise of egalitarianism. That premise whether consciously stated to the individual Alienists in question is; “all men are the same.” However, Egalitarianism cannot arrive at this premise without first consciously or unconsciously embracing other first principles.

Egalitarianism is both birthed by and the result of pulling down God off His throne. It can only be argued, as the Egalitarians argue, that “all men are the same racially” if one is operating from a (usually hidden) premise that God and man are the same. Egalitarianism in one’s theology leads to Egalitarianism in one’s social order thinking … and is reinforced as the conclusion also. In other words, one begins by holding that God and man are the same and then ends with concluding God and man are the same which in turn leads to all men are the same.  Said differently, one can’t flatten out their anthropology without first flattening out their theology.

This denial of racial distinctions is, at its core, a denial of distinctions both between God and man as well as the distinctions between the members of the trinity. I would recommend two books that demonstrate this;

R. J. Rushdoony — “The One And The Many”
Colin Gunton — “The One, The Three, And The Many”

Christianity does not allow, because of its doctrines of

1.) The Creator-creature distinction
2.) The distinction between the members of the Trinity

the egalitarian doctrine that “all men are the same, therefore all men can and should interracially marry.”

Now, as I’ve said a million times, these kinds of marriages may well be entered into but they should never be seen as the norm. If they are entered into Christians should try to support these ill advised marriages as much as they can.

Referring back to Dr. John Edwards Rice, who I quoted above, we explain;

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

And again,

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” ~

Dr. John Edwards Richards

“Banner Of Truth” Not Being Truthful … Or “Orwell Saw It All Coming”

In December I posted the following quote from J. C. Ryle.

“The dwelling-places of the earth’s inhabitants are curiously divided. The world is not made up of one people or one colour. God by His providential ordering has separated the earth’s inhabitants into distinct nations, languages, and races, each with its own peculiar characteristics. These distinctions have existed for centuries, and have been preserved in a most remarkable manner. No climate, no teaching, no misfortune has ever succeeded in obliterating them. The negro is still black, the Red Indian is still red, and the Chinaman is still yellow. Nothing seems to account for these things but a miraculous interposition of God.

…

Let us beware of giving way to the modern notion that there is no such thing as God’s providential arrangement of the nations, and that the present attempt to amalgamate all nationalities and races, and to denationalise and unchurch people, is wise and politic. God has divided the world into separate nationalities, climates, languages, and churches, and it is the height of mischief to try and break down the divisions.”

~J.C. Ryle
Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Matthew 24

Today, a friend of mine showed up in the comments saying that he owned a hard copy of Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels and that the quote I have above was not in his volume and asking me if I were confused.

That set me on the task of tracking down the quote. I traced the quote back to where I picked it up. I picked it up from my good friend and famous artist, Dan Brannan. I wrote Dan and asked him where he got the quote and together Dan and I went on a search and destroy mission to figure out where the problem was.

I soon learned that this book was published by “Banner of Truth Trust.” I immediately recalled that Banner of Truth had a past reputation of dropping material down the memory whole. That is Banner of Truth had been caught years ago editing out material from the work of A. W. Pink’s “The Sovereignty of God.” I immediately wondered if they had done the same to Ryle’s quote since it has the flavor of controversy about it.

In the meanwhile Dan was digging around in PDF’s online and discovering that despite Artificial Intelligence (GROK) giving him the quote above and the page number it was on in the Ryle volume he could not find the Ryle quote in available PDFs online.

Dan went back to GROK and asked … “Hey GROK, what gives? Why are you telling me that this quote exists — even giving me the page numbers — and yet when I go to the PDFs you have linked to me, the quotes are not there?

GROK wrote back;

” The specific passage on racial/national separation in the commentary on Matthew 24:1-7 appears to have been omitted or edited out in some later reprints and digital versions for sensitivity reasons in the 20th/21st centuries.

The full, unedited passage (including references to distinct races like ‘the negro,’ ‘Red Indian,’ and ‘Chinaman,’ and the warning against ‘amalgamating’ races/nationalities) is present in certain historical editions, particularly those published before widespread modern editing. However, it is not in most common public domain PDFs circulating online today.”

Back When The White Man Understood That Being & Staying White Was Desirable

“The fundamental reason for the adoption of the White Australia policy is the preservation of a British-Australian nationality.

They knew that racial unity, though not necessarily racial homogeneity, was essential for national unity, for true national life. The union of a people depends on common loyalty to common ideals, and on a common belief as to the best course in general to pursue to attain these ideals.

‘A united race,’ said Mr. Alfred Deakin [Second Prime Minister of Australia] in 1901, speaking on the subject of a White Australia;

‘means not only that its members can intermarry and associate without degradation on either side, but implies one inspired by the same ideals, and an aspiration towards the same ideals, of a people possessing the same general cast of character, tone of thought, the same constitutional training and traditions-a people qualified to live under this constitution, the broadest and most liberal perhaps the world has yet seen reduced to writing; a people qualified to use without abusing it, and to develop themselves under it to the full height and extent of their capacity.’

 In the words of Sir Henry Parkes [Premier of New South Wales] it was;

‘a question of policy of the first magnitude to cement society together by the same principles of faith and jurisprudence, the same influence of language and religion, and the same national habits of life.'”

History of the White Australia Policy
Myra Willard · 1923